Cascade Bicycle Club policy director David Hiller had some good news and bad news for cycling advocates this year in Olympia.
The good news: He expects an easier road for the bike club’s vulnerable users bill, which would make it easier to prosecute drivers who kill or seriously injure cyclists but do not meet the legal standard for criminal negligence. “I think we’ve got a good bill, a bill that will pass as written,” Hiller says.
The “vulnerable users law” would enhance penalties for people who carelessly hit and injure a cyclist, pedestrian, wheelchair user, skater, farm equipment operator, or someone riding on an animal.
The new proposal would make striking and killing or badly injuring a cyclist or pedestrian a special category of negligent driving in the second degree, subject to a fine, a traffic safety course, and up to 200 hours of community service. If the negligent driver doesn’t fulfill those requirements, they can be subject to a fine of up to $5,000, and a suspended license for 90 days.
Currently, killing a cyclist with your car only constitutes vehicular homicide when the driver was under the influence; driving “in a reckless manner”; or driving “with disregard for the safety of others. Otherwise—in cases of so-called “ordinary negligence” (the “failure to exercise ordinary care,” e.g. hitting a pedestrian while violating a traffic law)—drivers can walk away from “accidents” in which they kill a pedestrian or cyclist with a traffic fine of as little as $42, which they can pay by mail, and no license suspension.
At a Cascade-sponsored Traffic Justice Summit in October, several audience members argued that instead of putting drivers who kill cyclists in jail (one possibility under last year’s proposal), it might be more effective to suspend their license and subject them to heavy fines and retraining, as Oregon does.
The (sort-of) bad news: Funding for cycling purposes isn’t likely to increase this year, given the state’s $2.6 billion budget shortfall and the legislature’s short (60-day) session. Still, Cascade is floating a couple of ideas the group hopes to revive once the economy improves.
The first, the evocatively named “Clarifying existing responsibilities related to the operation of an efficient statewide transportation system” bill, would effectively require the state Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to look at the benefits of non-motorized transportation projects when evaluating which projects are worth funding, instead of limiting itself to “congestion relief,” code for more roads. Additionally, WSDOT would have to consider habitat loss, health impacts, and the “loss of mobility in the non-motorized travel environment resulting from high volumes of motor vehicle traffic” when evaluating transportation projects.
Although Hiller acknowledges the bill is “seditious” in the current pro-car climate in Olympia (“I think it would be pretty ambitious to think about getting this done this year”), he adds that, “it’s just as much an educational effort as anything.”
Also on Cascade’s agenda: Bumping up the amount the state currently sets aside for non-motorized transportation projects from 3/10 of a percent to 1 percent to be more in keeping with the 6 percent of trips made by walking or biking in the state. The chairs of the House and Senate transportation committees, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10) and Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41) are expected to roll out a roads-heavy transportation package in 2011.
I’ve got a call out to Clibborn to find out her reaction to Cascade’s 2010 agenda.
